HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Welcome To The Reagan Rev...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:26 PM

Welcome To The Reagan Revolution Economy -- 50+ And You Are Out Of A Job Permanently

the rest of your career will be at Walmart or other low paying big box. And you will have to wait until 67 to get your Social Security if the GOP gets its way. Why stop there, what about 70.

12 replies, 1208 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:28 PM

1. Exactly right. And it isn't just the GOP anymore, unfortunately.

 

Seems most pols and all branches of gov't are determined to make it as you present it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:30 PM

2. Japan went through it too - in the 90s. They had a name for it.

 

in English it was "old men looking out windows" or something like that.

In Spain UE is over 20%.

Greece? Forget it.

many others too

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:58 PM

3. I already have to wait until 67 for full SS benefits

as does anyone born after 1960. If the Republicans get their way, I'll have to wait that long for Medicare too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:02 PM

4. Those were the days, you got paid less in order to have a retirement. No, wait.

Then the likes of Bain Capital came along and bought the company. Oh, guess what, they found lots of money put away for retirement. They took it, now no retirement, now you will need to accept even less money, then, the company is suddenly going bankrupt, have to move the factory to China, before you leave you have to train your replacements. Can't get another job except for minimum wage, too bad so sad. Now our Congress wants to lower your Social Security. Just die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:17 PM

5. living it now....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:19 PM

6. Ronnie screwed this country over royally.

Union busting and on and on.
I was in law school during his first term. Fat lotta good it did me as far as getting a job. And I was 30 years younger then!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:07 PM

7. I agree, but I'm thinking the age is more like 45+

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DearHeart (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 02:23 AM

9. I Ran Into An Article A Long Time Ago I Cannot Find -- Corporate Actuary -- 42 Is The Age That ----

corporate America sees as the age of a worker becoming a burden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 06:01 PM

10. Wow! I knew that 50+ was hard & knew from my own experience that 45+ is harder than ever, but 42!

Nice to know that now I'm a "burden" to prospective employers!

Thanks for the info!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 06:19 PM

11. I guess I still haven't come to grips with this job/age correlation yet

My thoughts are that younger workers, women especially, that are of child bearing age would be the most perceived "liability" to corporate america. There is a lot of missed time due to young family obligations. I guess by liability, the older workers want to be paid more based on experience...? Or is it health benefits? Even then, the younger workers starting families cost corporations with health benefits way more than normally healthy older workers would. I must be missing something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:24 PM

8. kr

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheMastersNemesis (Original post)

Sat Dec 29, 2012, 06:31 PM

12. There must be a sweet spot then because they aren't picking up young people just out of college.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread